Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*


Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2022 at 7:42 PM, Speglord said:

Better to implement and test new game mechanics, then worry about map expansion later.

exactly everyone wants some epic campaign, but don't want to iron out the kinks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, o Barão said:

For now, only the Danton Class is confirmed by the devs to arrive in the next update.

danton-irootoko-JR.jpg

Beautiful ship.

I hjave seen that class but ehy also said that other hulls would be added also those hulls i am wondering about mainly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hyperion said:

exactly everyone wants some epic campaign, but don't want to iron out the kinks?

I prefer they iron out the kinks and take their time ands release a good game once then a POS that takes forever to repair look at WoWs for example or any game now days for example

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hyperion said:

exactly everyone wants some epic campaign, but don't want to iron out the kinks?

I agree that game mechanics are important, so is campaign, so is the ship editor and parts.

Designing ships is major part of this game. It need to be xpanded. There is lots of history nerds who wish to recreate fully their favorite ships. While you can do that with Von der Tann, Littorio, Bismarck, there is always room for improvement so that those ships actually look and feel like real thing. You can create Nelson, but currently that is not true Nelson. It miss skycraper like front superstructure, aft and even realistical funnel for it and even the guns that it use looks different slightly.

 

Currently there is only around 30-40 hulls and numerious variations. But there need to be more. Even Nelson cant be fully recreated if its heavier then it should be. Custom battle which probably many play to me is nothing but testing ground for ships, it is campaign that is more important. Perhaps conquest or even real battle scenarios that could make game more interesting. I will say again, i agree that new game mechanics need to be implimented but so is the other parts of the game, camapign, parts (hulls, superstructures, funnels, guns...) There should be more liberty in ship design. Custom battles should be expanded or special mod for real scenarios or conquests should be added.

 

I love ships and i love this game, and i do want it to grow because it has lot of potential and as some who played Rule the Waves and Rule the Waves 2 i am quite happy this game exists. Developers did magnificent job so far and i cant wait to see more.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Speglord @Hyperion @baltic1284

They need to bring the US into the war! Lol that’s classical.

Actually there’s two map expansion options, to go west, US, or go east, China-Japan.

Expanding west would include the very large continents of North America, South America and the North Atlantic Ocean. With all continental ports east & west coasts and maybe a few in South America.

Expanding east would include India, Indian Ocean, Africa Continent, Asia, Japan, China and the Pacific Ocean with more probable ports in Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. all those island chains! and probable far east Russian ports.

Both 'earthly' areas have very large art work requirements. Far more ports and nations to prep going east, less amount of ports west-wise, just one nation. Off chance they could do the whole world at once. 

I’m thinking the US will most probably be next, it can meet the market sooner and probably is the bigger market to tap too.

Anyway I think the only thing that’s holding up map expansions is the art work, ships and models are plentiful, so as soon as the map/art is ready, it’s patch time.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

World Domination?

Is this possible with continuous campaigns. Can a player defeat every nation? Or will your campaign have to rely on allies and/or other nations depleting every other enemy. Once a nation is beat, can we suppress them so they do not recover to be a threat again, therefore enabling us to continue on the path of world domination. Kinda realizing how big the world map is going to be.   

Many questions soon to be put to the test.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, baltic1284 said:

I prefer they iron out the kinks and take their time ands release a good game once then a POS that takes forever to repair look at WoWs for example or any game now days for example

 

WoWs just gets worse.  I played for a few months and dropped it and haven't even considered reinstalling since.  I got up to tier 8s in US GR and JP.  Constantly disappointed by lack of team play and awareness and the impossible to balance carrier play because carriers instantly showed the overwhelming dominance of airpower.  Which, incidentally, is why I'm glad this game focuses on surface combat, pre-cold war era.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

WoWs just gets worse.  I played for a few months and dropped it and haven't even considered reinstalling since.  I got up to tier 8s in US GR and JP.  Constantly disappointed by lack of team play and awareness and the impossible to balance carrier play because carriers instantly showed the overwhelming dominance of airpower.  Which, incidentally, is why I'm glad this game focuses on surface combat, pre-cold war era.

Yeah World of Warships teamplay is zero. Everyone goes their own ways, nobody cares. But i do enjoy blasting those pesky little destroyers out. There no bigger fun then when you fire your own torps (from your cruiser) and they hit DD in smoke screan, ah priceless. I played WoW because of ships. I just hope devis dont add multiplayer in this game. It would not work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

WoWs just gets worse.  I played for a few months and dropped it and haven't even considered reinstalling since.  I got up to tier 8s in US GR and JP.  Constantly disappointed by lack of team play and awareness and the impossible to balance carrier play because carriers instantly showed the overwhelming dominance of airpower.  Which, incidentally, is why I'm glad this game focuses on surface combat, pre-cold war era.

I didn't even get that far lol they claimed historical accuracy when it was released out of Beta helped theme test Beta and when they claimed historical accuracy and the 8 inch L55 gun range was not even close to accuracy or penetration values wasn't even close and how the armor no matter what melts when HE hits is when again historically accurate claimed game didn't happen in fact HE wasn't used for Ship to Ship combat at by anyone mainly due to HE being ineffective to armored ships. Yeah, after all that i quite uninstalled and walked away wasn't going to waste my time or money on a game that cant even get facts right

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, baltic1284 said:

I didn't even get that far lol they claimed historical accuracy when it was released out of Beta helped theme test Beta and when they claimed historical accuracy and the 8 inch L55 gun range was not even close to accuracy or penetration values wasn't even close and how the armor no matter what melts when HE hits is when again historically accurate claimed game didn't happen in fact HE wasn't used for Ship to Ship combat at by anyone mainly due to HE being ineffective to armored ships. Yeah, after all that i quite uninstalled and walked away wasn't going to waste my time or money on a game that cant even get facts right

HE was effective in the battle of the Tsushima Strait, in the Russo-Japanese war.  Because at that time ship design, metallurgy technology, armor, and damage control was in a very primitive state compared to what was current by the 1930's.  By the time of WW2 the use of high explosive against ships was limited to smaller lighter targets, or shore batteries attempting to effect crew damage against exposed secondary/AA mounts.

Here, if you're interested in the absolutely tragic comedy of a real historical naval battle, is parts 1 and 2 of Drachinifel's 'Voyage of the Damned' and 'The Battle of Tsushima' two parter covering first the journey, and then the battle, of the Russian '2nd Pacific Squadron'.  It is QUITE a listen.  Of particular note and relevance to this discussion is the running battle narration in Part 2, in which the use of, and tremendous effect of, high explosive rounds is described.

Part 1:  

Part 2:  

Edited by UnleashtheKraken
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've watched these vids and he has a dry sense of humor. Nonetheless very informative. Love the one part "and the Kamchatka". The Jingles version of this is definitely worth a watch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

WoWs just gets worse.  I played for a few months and dropped it and haven't even considered reinstalling since.  I got up to tier 8s in US GR and JP.  Constantly disappointed by lack of team play and awareness and the impossible to balance carrier play because carriers instantly showed the overwhelming dominance of airpower.  Which, incidentally, is why I'm glad this game focuses on surface combat, pre-cold war era.

Its hilarious for me because all I use WOWS for these days is for armor values for this game and nothing else. I stopped playing a long time ago and I don't regret it at all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

HE was effective in the battle of the Tsushima Strait, in the Russo-Japanese war.  Because at that time ship design, metallurgy technology, armor, and damage control was in a very primitive state compared to what was current by the 1930's.  By the time of WW2 the use of high explosive against ships was limited to smaller lighter targets, or shore batteries attempting to effect crew damage against exposed secondary/AA mounts.

Here, if you're interested in the absolutely tragic comedy of a real historical naval battle, is parts 1 and 2 of Drachinifel's 'Voyage of the Damned' and 'The Battle of Tsushima' two parter covering first the journey, and then the battle, of the Russian '2nd Pacific Squadron'.  It is QUITE a listen.  Of particular note and relevance to this discussion is the running battle narration in Part 2, in which the use of, and tremendous effect of, high explosive rounds is described.

Part 1:  

Part 2:  

Early ships of that time yes, HE was used more than HE and was more effective to metallurgy tech not being what came later but by the Time WW1 started HE wasn't used at much and it proved less effective also at that time ships weren't as armored as what would come later on. Trust when ya Gunner Mate in the Navy you learn all that stuff lol another thing that this game does get right that WoWS don't get right was range most 8 inch L55 guns engaged targets in the 17 to 20 mile range for accuracy the gun theme selves could shot near 25 miles or about 27.5KM from point of the ship but accuracy was so bad that it nick named shot gunning for that reason you hit everything but what you aimed at. At the ranges WoWS puts ships is considered point blank range and a suicide run, and the fact guns that where highly accurate like the German 11 inch guns are so poor in it that using theme it pointless.

HE against smaller ships like Destroyers held on longer in use but by the time of the late 20s and early 30s many guns that were built for that role generally shot the shell so fast that the sheer speed generally caused the shell to go into the ship and out the other side due to sheer velocity depending on range and armor of the Destroyer.

As for the battle of Tsushima this was a one-sided fight for 2 reasons the fact the Japanese used there big guns only when firing and the fact the ships they shot at even by those times where so out of date that there effect was pointless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Its hilarious for me because all I use WOWS for these days is for armor values for this game and nothing else. I stopped playing a long time ago and I don't regret it at all.

the armor values of the ships in game isn't that accurate either as for example the Balitmore Class Heavy Cruiser wasn't 6 inch that is what was on paper the armor thickness on the Belt and a Citadel was about 2 inches thicker, as Light Cruisers like the Cleveland Class had 6 inches on the belt alone and weighed only around 12 000 tones on a standard load around 15 000 on a maximum load while the Baltimore's came in at around something like 14 000 to 15 000 standard and around 17 000 on a maximum load.

The fact the Class from the CAD program to replace the Baltimore wasn't going to be called Boston Class not Buffalo as there was already a ship that had that name that was a Independence Class Light Carrier CVE 29, they also used the wrong hull for it anyway the Boston was to be a heavier longer and wider Cleveland hull in general in looks.

Although it is a good source to start with it isn't generally very accurate when it comes to that anything ship wise so take what you see there with a grain of salt and not true in way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, baltic1284 said:

the armor values of the ships in game isn't that accurate either as for example the Balitmore Class Heavy Cruiser wasn't 6 inch that is what was on paper the armor thickness on the Belt and a Citadel was about 2 inches thicker, as Light Cruisers like the Cleveland Class had 6 inches on the belt alone and weighed only around 12 000 tones on a standard load around 15 000 on a maximum load while the Baltimore's came in at around something like 14 000 to 15 000 standard and around 17 000 on a maximum load.

The fact the Class from the CAD program to replace the Baltimore wasn't going to be called Boston Class not Buffalo as there was already a ship that had that name that was a Independence Class Light Carrier CVE 29, they also used the wrong hull for it anyway the Boston was to be a heavier longer and wider Cleveland hull in general in looks.

Although it is a good source to start with it isn't generally very accurate when it comes to that anything ship wise so take what you see there with a grain of salt and not true in way.

Oh I know a lot of the armor values in WOWS is not accurate (thank God I haven't started building U.S cruisers yet) but it is a good source too start from and usually I  compare it to other sources to see which is the most accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Dreaming_Nagato said:

I just hope devis dont add multiplayer in this game. It would not work.

There’s more to multiplayer than just the arena, there’s the community.

If a forum was attached to a multiplayer server, then I think multiplayer could survive as an enthusiast club. Stranger things have happen! Devs can look and learn from Naval Action with its chat/discord usage, those guy’s have been there forever, it's a club, but clubs is where the user base is built from and sustain.

The second thing is to enable steam workshop and link it into the multiplayer server. This is to maximize support for the arena via model/scenario sharing.

Third would be that if it could attract and be supported by some CCs, at least in the beginning, then it would have its own marketing. In turn, CCs could create an reasonable amount of content from bouncing off one another and from these interactions they would be able to market themselves (maybe even ad spots or CCs forum section).

Forth, if GameLabs sold it as an DLC feature, then it would pay for the server.

If it was just a static server then yes, it’s not worth it, useless last decade stuff, but attach above features into a single server/forum, then there could be a real live, active and long term community.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

There’s more to multiplayer that just the arena, there’s the community.

If a forum was attached to a multiplayer server, then I think multiplayer could survive as an enthusiast club. Stranger things have happen! Devs can look and learn from Naval Action with its chat/discord usage, those guy’s have been there forever, it's a club, but clubs is where the user base is built from and sustain.

The second thing is to enable steam workshop and link it into the multiplayer server. This is to maximize support for the arena via model/scenario sharing.

Third would be that if it could attract and be supported by some CCs, at least in the beginning, then it would have its own marketing. In turn, CCs could create an reasonable amount of content from bouncing off one another and from these interactions they would be able to market themselves (maybe even ad spots or CCs section on the server).

Forth, if GameLabs sold it as an DLC feature, then it would pay for the server.

If it was just a static server then yes, it’s not worth it, useless last decade stuff, but attach above features into a single server/forum, then there could be a real live, active and long term community.

Id love to see a multiplayer campaign, 1 player as Germany and 1 as Britain for example imagine having all the major nations controlled by a different player, that would get intense. Slow but intense

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Oh I know a lot of the armor values in WOWS is not accurate (thank God I haven't started building U.S cruisers yet) but it is a good source too start from and usually I  compare it to other sources to see which is the most accurate. 

If you wanna now just let now i can set you straight currently the game doesn't have the right hulls for US Cruisers yet as most are either smaller BBs which isn't accurate or oped older designs which isn't right either

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate to ask for new territories, is it possible we can see Alexandria as a repair port for Britain in the Med? It makes sufficient sense in the time period and the convoy raiding has an insane impact given that British ships go all the way back to the UK to repair.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Traslo said:

As much as I hate to ask for new territories, is it possible we can see Alexandria as a repair port for Britain in the Med? It makes sufficient sense in the time period and the convoy raiding has an insane impact given that British ships go all the way back to the UK to repair.

When I am GB and am moving ships to the Med, I start with moving them to Gibraltar and then Malta.  Then any time they get damaged they go there.  They always go to the last port they were in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike L said:

When I am GB and am moving ships to the Med, I start with moving them to Gibraltar and then Malta.  Then any time they get damaged they go there.  They always go to the last port they were in.

Do they? I've had ships move to Malta first and then I deploy them and they still end up back in the UK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Danz_Von_Luck said:

Id love to see a multiplayer campaign, 1 player as Germany and 1 as Britain for example imagine having all the major nations controlled by a different player, that would get intense. Slow but intense

A multiplayer campaign could be interesting, especially for the youtubers to role playing or as a CO-OP or with friends, but it will never work with randoms is too slow for that and the timezone will make worse.

To try multiplayer, the campaign or the game has to be finish and is not easy to implement. Not all games work on multiplayer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer not having a multiplayer. Those games tend to go to hell really quickly when multi players form circlejerks and are swarming the forum and the multi balance suddenly start to be major problem and everything else suffers.

Looking at Paradox games ಠ_ಠ

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vanhal said:

I would prefer not having a multiplayer. Those games tend to go to hell really quickly when multi players form circlejerks and are swarming the forum and the multi balance suddenly start to be major problem and everything else suffers.

Looking at Paradox games ಠ_ಠ

I don't like idea of multiplayer in this game at all. I mean multiplayer campaign seems interesting idea but it will be hell on forum when complains start hitting. Especially if both players mass ships and have massive battles, person with weaker pc will suffer from lag.  Nope its better to remain single player game. Who says that every game in existance these days must be multiplayer. I remember good old days when single player games were more in then multiplayer stuff.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nick Thomadis changed the title to What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*
  • Nick Thomadis locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...